Women full of blinders

I’ve been writing recently about the dangers of treating low-life sexual perverts as leaders of men. I’ve explained why modern men tend to think bad boys are cool, and I’ve proposed that women love bad boys because men love bad boys. This hypothesis either has or does not have merit as an objective explanation, and I laid it out this way in one of the comment threads:

Define “bad boy” = “men who make poor fathers”.

The conventional hypothesis (CH) is that women like “bad boys” because bad boys are more objectively masculine. This hypothesis, I suspect, gives the female lizard brain too much credit for objectivity. The female lizard brain is built to be shaped by male leadership, not to operate “on its own” outside of the context of male leadership. It also begs the question[1] of what is “masculine” and fails to explain why women frequently go for the kind of bad boyMark Richardson describes.

The Zippy hypothesis (ZH) is that men — who are not natural leaders simpliciter, but arrange themselves into hierarchies as both leaders and followers – determine the hierarchy. The female lizard brain keys in on this male hierarchy (the actual one, not the formal one, thus “cool” vs nerd-king) and is naturally attracted to the men that (other) men “love”, that is, submit to, admire, judge to be dominant and high value, think are “cool”, etc.

So women find themselves (unwittingly, really, since this is the lizard brain we are talking about) attracted to the men that other men love, fear, admire, etc. Women have some control over this just as men have some control over how they respond to a woman dressed like a slut; but at the visceral level there is an involuntariness to the way the flesh responds to temptation.

So the reason modern women find themselves (whether they like it or not) attracted to “bad boys” – defined, remember, as men who make poor fathers – is because modern men go for bad boys. And the reason modern men go for bad boys is because liberalism is pervasive, the hierarchy has been destroyed, the whole world is on fire with rebellion against nature and nature’s God, and the bad boy rebel has been elevated to the highest point in the de facto hierarchy – a hierarchy which is not allowed to exist but which persists despite its prohibition.

One of the problems with convincing women that cads/players are low value in an attempt to discourage her having sex with him is the woman’s ability to identify the cad/player prior to having sex with him. My wife encounters this when talking to young women; their definition of “player” is the beta guy who gives them the creeps by telling them how beautiful they are. I see this same pattern on Yahoo Answers. I strongly suspect this is related to the scientific research finding that ovulating women fool themselves into thinking cads would make great dads. Telling women cads are sexual losers plays right into their blind spot, because they already want to peg the sexual losers as the cads, freeing them to pursue “true love” with that really smooth and not at all caddish guy who makes her tingle.

This is certainly a problem when we are talking in general, abstract terms, because it applies to situations where the ‘filtering’ process is up to women. Women should make note of this inherent problem in their filters.

But when it comes to actual, specific cads that we know on-line or in person – men whose particular claim to ‘expertise’ is their notch-count of bar skanks – we either treat them with respect and deference qua cad, buying their books and giving them naming rights over masculinity (“Game”), or we state the truth plainly: that they are the bottom-feeding perverts of the sexual revolution, and men of good will owe them nothing.

This brings me to my final point, which is that a kind of stockholm syndrome seems prevalent among some men who came by the truth through reading online self-professed cads. That is all well and good, because God always brings forth good from the evil we do and experience. Some saints came by their sainthood through suffering terrible diseases.

But it is one thing to be grateful for one’s enlightenment however it came about, and it is another thing entirely to make a demi-god of syphilis.

[1] Here I do mean actually “begs the question,” not “raises the question”, which is what the phrase is frequently misused to mean.

This topic is my singular concern at the moment, to the extent that I have singular concerns (actually I have three or four more concerns yet to do before I sleep tonight).

I don’t think any good man suffers any more from envy of the wicked than anyone else has ever done (Psalm 73, e.g.). Since becoming Game aware (if not Game adept) I am not lying awake plotting or dreaming about other women, nor about the men of those other women. The difficulty I and/or we Guys Formerly Known As Nice are most grappling with is that in dealing with this broken world, including its broken women, it is of course sometimes necessary to be the “bad” guy, roll up our sleeves, and show our muscles (cf “make bare the arm”). Not towards some enemy, but towards our wayward women.

The conventional hypothesis (CH) is that women like “bad boys” because bad boys are more objectively masculine. This hypothesis, I suspect, gives the female lizard brain too much credit for objectivity. The female lizard brain is built to be shaped by male leadership, not to operate “on its own” outside of the context of male leadership

If you read female romances, it is perfectly obvious that the female perception of status is wildly different from the male perception of status. Females are not influenced by male leadership. The female perception of status resembles that of a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters.

The romantic lead may be a serial killer who murders the weak and innocent (pirate, vampire or werewolf).

Plucking three romantic manga for girls at random:

Romantic male lead (prince in armor carrying a sword all the time) murders the female protagonists family, then abducts the female protagonist.

Romantic male lead (high school sports star) deliberately fouls members of his own team (not members of the opposing team) then, at a critical moment in the game, stops playing in order to grandstand.

Romantic male lead (high school charmer, massively pre-selected) makes a good start on violently raping female protagonist. (It was glaringly obvious that the female protagonist was asking for it, but she claims she was not) He was the nearest thing to a well behaved male protagonist in the three.

Romances with well behaved male leads exist, but they are usually targeted at a mixed audience. Romances targeted entirely at females
almost always have male leads who would be unlikely to be viewed as high status by males.

Posts that contradict themselves usually amuse me, but yours didn’t as it contradicted itself on such a shallow level, that it’s no sport. A prince in armor carrying a sword all the time, a high school sports star, and a high school charmer — these are men other men don’t look up to?

O no, I am being dragged into this now. The stupidity – it was all a trap!

A fictional character from a 30+ year old show set in the past might not be terribly instructive for modern day times, but I think the development of the character of the Fonz in Happy Days might be an interesting case study.

From my understanding, the Fonz, despite his success with women, was not perceived to be the star of the show at its inception, or even a particularly sympathetic character. He certainly was not respected by Mr. Cunningham, the only real male authority figure. He obviously softened as the show went on, but he was all “alpha” traits with no “beta.” He lived in a garage apartment, for crying out loud.

But he became the star of the show, the audience cheered whenever he entered a scene, etc.

Who was driving this? Was it admiration from the female characters? Female fans of the show? The other male characters of the show? The sympathy of Mrs. Cunningham? Some combination of the above.

Everyone was driving this, because the only kind of assertiveness that liberal society allows is the assertiveness of rebellion. The “father figure” in popular culture was at best neutral background then and has become downright contemptible now, the very bottom of the hierarchy.

It is sort of ironic that Fonzie was played by a talented but rather short and effeminate actor. His power of “cool” was Harry Potter magic made possible only through the fakery of television – just the sort of faux-masculinity, today being peddled as “Game”, that eventually and inevitably jumps the shark.

Then, to play Devil’s Advocate (since I am sympathetic to the notion), I wonder about the utility about the type of me who read these types of blogs disapproving of cads — wouldn’t we just be seen as an “authority,” and thus strengthening the cads’ rebel status? Is it worth it to try to maintain social currency so our approval/disapproval carries weight?

For example, my suspicion is that if I were to weigh in on the racism thread below, the primary impact of my input would be to confirm how far gone churchian types are and how necessary it is to push back against it is.

This is part of why, while I certainly see the value in understanding the mechanisms of attraction, I am skeptical about efforts to “hack” it to achieve some desired result. We should proclaim the Truth for Truth’s sake, not necessarily because doing so will shift the balance of attraction.

From last week’s article “One thing Dalrock has correctly pointed out though is that getting one cad to drop out just leaves more sluts for the remaining cads. Once sexual morality has gone out the window one man can juggle multiple women.” The demonization or lionization of the remaining cad by other men doesn’t matter to those women. ALL that matters is that the women can have the access that the women want when the women want it. She doesn’t want the good cookies; she wants the bad cookie and will not settle for anything else unless forced to settle.

johnmcg:… wouldn’t we just be seen as an “authority,” and thus strengthening the cads’ rebel status?

Sure, that’s possible — among people who are loyal to liberalism.

We should proclaim the Truth for Truth’s sake, not necessarily because doing so will shift the balance of attraction.

Hah, you know how to not argue with me!

I don’t see my last few posts as an attempt to hack though. I’m just trying to argue for folks to see things as (I think they) really are. And part of that is seeing that (presuming ZH not CH) high-fiving the cads is just encouraging sluts to be even more slutty.

The answer is no. No matter how many times they get burned nor how many times they see others get burned, they are not pulling their hands away.

It could be that some form of Black Knighting is the only answer. Seriously. Game a woman, lead her on and document your success so she can’t lie, but don’t go through with closing but publically game-shame her.

jf12:
As far as I can tell you are just asserting that CH is true and ZH is false. That’s fine, but it doesn’t address the weaknesses of the former compared to the latter that are discussed in the OP; and what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.

jf12:
Dalrock’s argument is that cad shaming has no appreciable effect on the supply of cads available to sluts, because of the one-to-many relationship between cads and sluts. It is a good microeconomic argument, as far as it goes.

However, it takes static female preferences as a given. It isn’t at all clear that that is a sound assumption. Or at any rate it is an assumption I have called into question.

I believe ZH is guilty of the apex fallacy, since we all know that women don’t care about any man’s opinions, except for the apex. And it is both irrational and a waste of effort to try to convince an apex that he shouldn’t be an alpha any more. Similarly, you will not ever convince a cad to stop being caddish if caddishness is working for him. And now to the point: you cannot convince anyone that you think focusing on Player Shaming is a good idea, because it’s not a good idea.

You will find the truth at Heartiste, and not in church. PUAs are undoubtedly leading women astray. Indeed, a large part of game is teaching how to live a lie and act out a lie “fake it till you make it”, but the holy Church of feminism is leading men astray, and Heartiste is not.

Women fear judgment from other women, especially those higher than them in the social hierarchy. However, even more than this they fear judgment from men. They don’t just fear judgment from men in the top of the male hierarchy, they fear judgment from any man who has the basic respect of other men (which is most men). Even women at the top of the female hierarchy fear the judgment of ordinary (respected by other men) men.

This is a form of power almost all men have but fail to exercise for a number of reasons, but of critical importance is the fact that most have no idea the power even exists.

(Emphasis mine).

The idea that women only care about the opinions of apex men is false, and misconstrues the meaning of the term “apex fallacy”. The apex fallacy suggests that women operate on a stereotype of men in general based on (putative) apex men.

If women care about the judgements of most men then most men should use that power to shame sluts for sleeping with low-value perverts.

It is possible to be plausibly “bad” but not anti-church. Dread game is one way. Be ye angry and sin not. A man’s raised voice can be a tool, not just a weapon.

One major major thing our women is not learning is that the women should be in awe of good men; a woman should learn to dread the loss of a good man more than anything else in this world, except the loss of her own salvation.

All aspects of Dread involve her revaluing loss. Competition anxiety, of course, but also other loss of intimacy, loss of resources, loss of protection. This is NOT the way men want it to be, but clearly women need to fear their “loved” one to avoid being contemptuous of him.

jf12:
You are taking that expression of the apex fallacy too literally, and it has led you down a rat hole. A low level beta cop could not have set off a continent-wide firestorm among feminists if women didn’t care what any men other than “apex” men think.

Re:”they fear judgment from any man who has the basic respect of other men” Name one. Name one out of the over a hundred million ordinary respectable adult men in the US whose judgment ANY woman fears. Name one. Name one whose opinion on her shoes matters to her. Name one whose favorite meal matters to her. Name one whose day at work matters to her. Name one whose fracture matters to her.http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/
Name one.

The single greatest societal problem is women’s loss of fear of their husbands. In stead many women found themselves bad boys to fear, while most others merely turned to contempt, the opposite of fear, leading to divorce etc.

Women can sin a lot easier than men. Not merely because of sexual economic supply and demand, not merely because their tendency to sin, their concupiscence, finds outlets easier, and not just because they are the weaker vessel. Nowadays their ability to sin is celebrated, protected, subsidized. They fear neither God nor man.

But it isn’t even true. Men are perfectly capable of sinning (sexually, specifically, since that seems to be the focus presently) just as easily as women and probably do sin just as much. Masturbation democratizes sexual sin for everyone.

I don’t agree with Dalrock on all things, and the importance to me of something his wife said to him “This fits closely with a point my wife has often made; men have no idea how much their judgment of women impacts them.” is approximately negative zilch. Adam’s sin of which God accused him and judged him and cursed the world with death etc was Adam bothering to listen to his wife.

jf12:
That isn’t the only evidence though. You apparently didn’t read very far.

In any case, clearly you (and some other commenters here and elsewhere) accept the “conventional” hypothesis and reject mine (I call it mine, even though it is hardly original with me, because I don’t have a bibliography handy for sourcing my own conventional views). Defending the “conventional” hypothesis – with a flurry of words if not necessarily much in the way of rational, empirically sound argument – seems very important to some folks.

That’s fine. This blog isn’t a sociology paper or whatever. I’m content to have gotten the distinction articulated, so that anyone who cares can hold both hypotheses up to the light of historical and present-day reality and see what they think.

And beyond that, of course, men (especially impressionable young men) would do well for themselves not to fall into the trap of treating bottom-feeding losers as “SMV gurus” and leaders of men.

“men (especially impressionable young men) would do well for themselves not to fall into the trap of treating bottom-feeding losers as “SMV gurus” and leaders of men.”

I agree. The alternative advice to the boys, however, apparently amounts to “Maybe you’ll get a unicorn someday if you’re good.” and since all the boys can clearly see the evidence of their own eyes that that was initially extremely unlikely and becomes ever more unlikely as time goes by, then what? What do we tell our beta sons?

Find their own Everest to climb? Ha. Ha ha ha.

Or act a little less beta?

If you make a small modification to ZH viz “Women OUGHT to respect the value judgments of beta men.” then we are in agreement.

If you make a small modification to ZH viz “Women OUGHT to respect the value judgments of beta men.” then we are in agreement.

No, that female attraction actually is significantly conditioned by what men in general[1] admire/fear/submit to in other men is ZH. Obviously you reject it. We shouldn’t compromise on it like a couple of women if we genuinely disagree.

[1] Without the “beta” qualifier, which is a useful simplification but shouldn’t be turned into an ideology.

I’ve stayed on topic quite well, I think. MGTOW scorning all women is the end game, the big Dread. Women’s fury is an ineffectual response to men’s scorn. To the extent that men have power over women, it is power to drive women away.

“female attraction actually is significantly conditioned by what men in general[1] admire/fear/submit to in other men” I’ll name a counterexample: Bill Gates. You raised a lot of similar examples e.g. nerd-kings etc. Being King of Call Of Duty has remarkable cachet with young men, but females completely fail to find the attraction (amazingly, I know). King of beatboxing. King of chess. King of STEM. King of Anything That Isn’t Historically Associated With Lots Of Girlfriends. Yes, we genuinely disagree, whole hog. The world in its feral state is roughly opposite the way it should be, and women admiring men is the way it should be.

The ACTUAL hierarchy of young men (without women) is King-of-Call-of-Duty. You are begging the question of what is cool, committing the No True Coolguy fallacy, by proclaiming that women prefer men who men look up to “provided those men are men who women prefer” putting the right words there.

I don’t think the valuing of champions of a field is a matter of men vs. women but of members of a community vs. outsiders.

I would say that actually being The King at anything is valued by both men and women. Actually being Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the President, etc. brings about status.

But it falls down pretty quickly after that. Other players in the field may admire the second or third best Call of Duty player, but nobody outside of that culture cares. Other programmers may want to work with or admire the second or third best hacker, and admire his work, but nobody else cares.

Actually my personal definition of cool never depended on women’s preferences at all, and all of my educational and career and volunteer choices were made entirely without women’s input at all, because I knew correctly that women’s choices were uncool. Being that women make uncool choices, essentially by definition, one example being that they didn’t choose me. Q.E.D.

Why in the world do you know who M. Shadows is? I’ve heard of his band, but I had to Google his name. That is impressive, I think.

These were priceless.

I’ll name a counterexample: Bill Gates.

and

I would say that actually being The King at anything is valued by both men and women. Actually being Bill Gates…

I ran into this same mental roadblock on my blog. In an effort to counter my assertion that wisdom is being confused with various other -ologies, and the resulting mix called Game, I was informed reminded that the attribute I was looking for was not Wisdom, but Charisma; as laid out in the authoritative codex on wooing women: Dungeons and Dragons.

I’m still working on not only the what, but the how and even why to answer that.

Our robot team captain, a boy this year, *owns* the joint from the moment of his arrival every evening after burger-flipping work. A skinny (charitably, wiry) dorky looking hyper lad with glasses, he flicks his eyes in disgust at his hand-picked successor waving from the milling machine, barking “You know better than to be wearing gloves! Take those off!” The girls in the machine shop don’t look up. They actually follow directions better than the boys, but they are picky about whom those directions come from. He checks in on the programming team, and within a fraction of a second recommends a small lookup table instead of the on-the-fly binned function calculation for which the younger members had been fiercely debating an algorithm at the white board, wielding their colored markers like daggers. The girl programmers continue debating, as the boys begin coding the table. He sets down adultly with the three adult men surrounding the main prototype. The fullscale version of a pivoting cantlilever system isn’t so good as the quarter scale led us to imagine, and the previous night’s refabbing and strengthening the stress points made it worse. We’re grasping at straws, suggesting floating linkages, as boys in the team hierarchy come and go seeking their captain’s approval and input. Fully half the team is female, but they’ve apparently adopted a parallel hierarchy again this year. Last year with a girl captain the team was more command unified, but every year with a dork boy captain the team is out of whack this same way with the girls.

I understand it is your indentured service of the feminine imperative’s apex fallacy that is making you blind to your No True Coolguy fallacy. One way to convince me you are serious in defending ZH would be for you to demonstrate to me how you are not trying to prohibit attacks on ZH (head in sand, using e.g. No True Coolguy to limit your universe of discussion to men that women already prefer) by actually discussing counterexamples that disprove ZH in my universe.

Fanboys wet themselves watching No True Coolguy Billy Joe Cain wet himself playing Defender for over 33 hrs straight, losing a life for every 7 seconds he used the bathroom.http://defendering.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-big-deal-about-defender-defender.html
None of them cared anything for women’s deference to Other Men or shadows. Women’s problem is listening to the Wrong Guys. Men’s problem, especially for the Right Guys, is listening to women.

Given that the Gnome Underpants Reverse (the Actual one) Business Plan does not work for the majority of men, for whom it does not work, it is both irrational and unkind of you to insist that your advice for men to use it applies to only Actual Men.
Gnome Underpants Reverse (an Actual one) Business Plan:
1. Be a man (an Actual one).
2. ???
3. Collect panties.

It seems impossible for a male-dominated sub-culture (D&D enthusiasts, computer nerds, etc.) to generate female attraction, particularly from women outside of that subculture. They all may admire an individual man, recognize him as “king” of that subculture, but that does not typically translate into female attention. Men cannot create alpha out of thin air.

This is even true for more conventional domains. The biggest movie star is rarely the best technical actor; the greatest sports starts aren’t always the best players; the greatest rock stars aren’t the greatest musicians, etc. Insiders of those domains might lament that the best aren’t getting the most attention, but that doesn’t mean they can generate attraction.

I guess the question boils down to whether the difference is the type of “admiration” or the type of people doing the admiring. Zippy would say that the way men admire the skill of say, Tim Duncan, is different from how we would be start-struck at Michael Jordan. Or is it that it’s basketball geeks are the ones who admire Tim Duncan, and nobody gives a damn what they think?

If it’s the latter, then Zippy’s advice isn’t helpful, because the manosphere is likely a disrespected subculture, and its opinions aren’t going to carry any weight in the broader culture.

If the former, then the question becomes whether the female attraction feeds the male admiration, vice versa, or some combination in a kind of feedback loop. And if this admiration is at a lizard-brain level (a platonic type of “gina tingles”) can it be controlled, or simply just not expressed?

Not impossible, especially for insiders — contextual ‘alpha’ might be enough in some cases. Dork Boy probably has a better shot with one of the nerd-girls than any of the other nerds. But the nerd-girls can’t disbelieve their lying eyes, and in general have more context than just the robotics club.

On the other point, if high-fiving sociopathic perverts and expressing gratitude for their deep wisdom and leadership is doing nothing more than raising the ‘contextual alpha’ of sociopathic perverts within the ‘red pill’ domain, that is reason enough to cut it out.

Not impossible, especially for insiders — contextual ‘alpha’ might be enough in some cases. Dork Boy probably has a better shot with one of the nerd-girls than any of the other nerds. But the nerd-girls can’t disbelieve their lying eyes, and in general have more context than just the robotics club.

This. Even pro footballer players would probably get shot down on a regular basis if most of them were nothing more than contextual alphas. Women by and large don’t give a damn what male-dominated activity you do so long as it’s masculine and you’re more alpha than beta (or delta and gamma). This is why I am more inclined to laugh hysterically in a woman’s face for trying to make fun of me for playing video games. The best defense for a beta is a good offense in such cases.

Mike T:
Another factor is that lots of regular guy men watch football and admire football players, even if they don’t play football themselves. But Dungeons and Dragons isn’t much of a spectator sport.

Vin Diesel plays D&D. Probably not a single normal woman would give him crap for that because he’s probably an alpha in most aspects of his life. It’s not even required that it be a spectator sport or anything of interest to women if the man himself is at least somewhat interesting to women.

Against my better judgment I’ll try again to translate into nerd-speak. Perhaps this will benefit someone, if not necessarily jf12.

Men generally do to some extent admire/fear/respect/defer to bad boys because the bad boys get female attention — the feedback loop John suggests. But women are not the only reason for male deference to other males, by any stretch of the imagination. Women are not even a primary reason why some men defer to other men. There may be a feedback loop, but it isn’t an isolated self-referential system with no other inputs.

Female attention is one of the spoils of social dominance; it is not a primary cause of social dominance.

Men determine the de-facto deference hierarchy, and women respond to that determination. Women know that in a confrontation, dork-boy is going to back down and submit to M Shadows. Women know that in a knife fight Bill Gates is going to run away from Tommy Tats-n-piercings. You can’t fool them into thinking otherwise.

Men, not women, determine the masculine hierarchy. Modern liberal men – that is, almost all men in the modern West – deny the legitimacy of masculine hierarchy. Even where there is de-jure hierarchy (Bill Gates over his subordinates, say), it is (required to be) fully voluntary: Gates only exercises authority by consent of the governed, who can up and quit any time. There is no absolutely binding command to it, just mutual self-interest and free choice. De-jure hierarchy under liberalism is not like natural masculine hierarchy: it is a very effeminate cooperation, that is, cooperation backed by no real authority.

Because an attempt to deny masculine hierarchy is an attempt to deny nature, liberalism cannot actually prevent masculine hierarchy from emerging. All it can do is categorize masculine hierarchy as sociopathic.

So the masculine hierarchy which emerges under liberalism is sociopathic, and the result is that modern women are attracted to sociopaths.

“So the masculine hierarchy which emerges under liberalism is sociopathic, and the result is that modern women are attracted to sociopaths.”
“Modern women liberated by liberalism are sociopathic, and thereby exhibit that sociopathy by being attracted to sociopaths.”
There I fixed it.

[…] Cane, Vox, and Simon (twice) go back and forth on game. Related: God, game, and the men’s movement. Related: Game is not just a toolbox. Related: Lifting weights. Related: A Jew and an Assyrian walk into a bar. Related: Wisdom, eros, and the church. Related: A wife is a gift from God. Related: Women are attracted to men whom other men give status. […]